Hussy

Much underrated and sadly, little seen seedy gem. Low budget so lots of location shooting, always good, especially in London and if a little rough around the edges, all the better. Helen Mirren gives a gutsy and convincing performance in what is a surprisingly convincing glimpse of the sleazier side of late 70s London. She would play a rather more glossy version of the fancied girl on the edge of the underworld in the following year's Long Good Friday but even in that fine film we do not see a finer performance than here. Matthew Chapman does well with his limited funds and gets decent performances from everyone including the child and surely one of the most menacing bad guys in cinema. Paul Angelis, who worked mainly in TV but famously voiced parts for Yellow Submarine, switches deftly between friendly and fearsome as a psychotic criminal strong man and coming between the two main protagonists. Solid script, competent direction, great performances and wonderful settings make this an essential view.

One of Helen Mirren's first......I suppose everybody has to work their way up from the bottom.

The writer and director of this nonsense did go on to write one of my favourite movies, Runaway Jury. So that's something I suppose.

The action is stilted, the characters unbelievable, the plot simplistic and the production quality is poor.

In a few years, Mirren would go on to have her breakout role in The Long Good Friday which is not too dissimilar to this in look and feel.

Just a word about the ridiculous climax the hinges on whether or not a child wants to run away with his mum. Must have sounded great on the page because it was laughable on the screen.

well, the title is certainly "trashy" enough to mislead those looking for a quality drama away to other things. the makers definitely could've chosen a better one, but perhaps they wanted the added interest a lurid title would draw? the box the DVD i watched came in had this extra bit of salaciousness as a caption at the top: "how much sex is enough" (l.o.l.) but, being familiar with helen mirren's career, i knew that if she were starring in it there might be nudity (and there is), but it'd be a first-rate film (and it is). she's always been a knockout, in addition to being one of Britain's best actresses. hence, her honorary status there as a "dame." (she was also, at age 60, recently a marquee guest speaker at the local film festival) i'm really surprised, though, that somebody didn't go back and change the title of this film. anyway, i liked it. if you like helen mirren - particularly, early h.m. - you'll like it, too. note her entrance into the film's story after the first few minutes. that tells you everything you need to know about what the filmmakers think of her, and her own class.

This was not a bad film, but without Helen Mirren's acting -- she was superb even in 1980 -- I'm not sure how bad it COULD have been. Unfortunately, she's teamed here with John Shea, an American would-be heartthrob who was supposed to be a big star at one time until someone found he wasn't a very good actor.

It was annoying to rent this, because the DVD jacket shows Mirren in sexy poses. She is never really nude; we get a profile glimpse of one of her breasts as she climbs into a bathtub. But the DVD jacket would have you believe she's all but into explicit sex here. Pure exploitation of Mirren. This movie would have been more or less forgettable if she hadn't gone on to greater things.

All things considered, this is just another familiar and formulaic 'thriller' about a hard-working single mother reduced to prostitution who gets it on with Shea after a 'romance' of sorts.

My personal rule of thumb: if you're looking for a sexy movie, and a DVD has sexy pictures on the front, there's a 90 per cent chance you're going to be disappointed. This movie is just another example of the rule.

I can't say that I liked this film very much, but it did have some good elements. First, and foremost, Helen Mirren. She has always been sooo beautiful, even into her sixties. Here, she was about thirty-five, and looks it, with some lines around the eyes that no modern actress would tolerate in this Botox era. I found it charming and attractive, myself. But then, I'm no spring chicken myself. Many actresses ruin their looks with toxins and surgeries. Yes, feminine beauty is ephemeral, but the effort to maintain it often goes horribly bad these days. Anyway, the plotting and casting seem better to me now, than when I was watching the film yesterday. Not sure what that means. I guess I'd say that fans of Mirren (like me) should definitely see this, and others should probably skip it.